Flightline: 15/TBD

"user314" (user314)
07/29/2020 at 11:00 • Filed to: flightline, Planelopnik, planelopnik history, NACA, x-planes, x planes

1953 NACA experimental aircraft group shot

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , 8/4/53

Arranged for a publicity shot are seven of NACA’s hottest manned X-Planes and other research aircraft of the early to mid Fifties. Clockwise from the top, they are the Bell X-5, Douglas D-558-2 Skyrocket, Northrop X-4 Bantam, Douglas X-3 Stiletto, Bell X-1A, D-588-1 Skystreak, and Convair XF-92. The aircraft were flown by a variety of contractor, NACA and USAF pilots during their time at Edwards AFB.

The !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! was built to test variable wing sweep, and was the first aircraft to be able to change its sweep in flight. Bell partially based the X-5 on the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , which could be set to different sweep angles prior to flight. The X-5's wings could be switched between three positions: 20°, 40° and 60°, utilizing a jackscrew assembly to move the hinge along rails and disc brakes to hold the wing in the desired position.

Composite photo showing the X-5's wings at all three possible positions

Moving from full sweep to minimum sweep or vice-versa took less than thirty seconds, and the motion of the hinge and pivots partially compensated for the CG change. The design did suffer from an otherwise poor aerodynamic layout however, with the tail and vertical stab being inadequate, and a bad tendency to enter an unrecoverable spin at certain sweep angles. One of the two X-5s built was lost after such a spin, and the pilot was killed. The other continued testing until 1955, and was used as a chase plane until 1958 after which it was delivered to the USAF Museum in Dayton.

The !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! was a the second aircraft a planned three stage plan, with the jet-powered D-558-1 being the first phase, and the unbuilt pure rocket 558-3, originally conceived to explore hypersonic speeds. The Skyrocket built by Douglas for the US Navy, and was famously flown by !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! who became the first person to exceed Mach 2 in 1953, less than a month before the 50th anniversary of First Flight at Kitty Hawk. Originally using a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! turbojet to takeoff and a Reaction Motors !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! rocket engine (same as the X-1) for high-speed flight, the first two Skyrockets were later switched to pure rockets (#3 continued life as mixed-propulsion experiment), and were carried aloft by a Navy P2B patrol bomber (the Navy’s version of the Boeing B-29).

A P2B up on jacks to allow D-558-2 # 144 to be mounted underneath

Over 8 years and 313 flights the three Skyrockets researched a variety of wing-fence, wing-slat and leading edge chord extension configurations, all designed to improve stability and maneuverability of transonic and supersonic aircraft, as well as the effect of various external stores (bombs and fuel tanks) on the aircraft’s behavior. All three D-558-2s survive, with D-558-2 #1 Skyrocket is on display at the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , Chino, California, number two Skyrocket, the first aircraft to fly Mach 2, on display at the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! in Washington D.C., and #3 aircraft on a pylon in the grounds of !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , Lancaster, California.

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! was designed to explore the stability of a semi-tailless planform at high-speed. Resembling the WW2-era !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and post-war !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , the Bantam was built only big enough to hold the two !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! jets, necessary instruments, a 45-minute fuel supply and pilot. The X-4 proved the opposite of its expected goal, suffering from pitch oscillation, tucking, and a tendency to “hunt” about all three axes. Various attempts were made to improve stability, but, mainly due to the primitive flight controls of the time, a permanent fix was never found, and the type was retired after six years and only 100 or so flights. The second X-4 is on display at the USAF Museum, and the first (which only flew for contractor flights and was retained as a spares source) has been restored and will go on display at the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! when it opens in December 2021 (or there abouts).

The !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! was designed to test aircraft shaping for sustained supersonic speed, mainly a long, narrow fuselage and nose, and slender, low aspect ratio wings. Douglas expected the X-3 to reach 2,000 mph, however the experimental !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! engines did not develop, and so !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! engines were substituted, despite being half the expected thrust of the former jets. The Stiletto was considered a failure in its primary mission, being too u nderpowered to reach Mach 1 in level flight. The aircraft also had a high take-off speed as was difficult to control. The program did result in data on inertia coupling, and Lockheed also utilized the X-3's data when developing the F-104 Starfighter. The sole Stiletto is on display at the USAF Museum.

The !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! was a follow-on to the X-1, famously flown by Chuck Yeager to Mach 1 just a year prior. The X-1A was designed to explore higher speeds, and was heavier and longer than its predecessor. The plane also had a new windscreen for better pilot visibility . Dropped from a B-29 or B-50, the X-1A, with Yeager at the controls, set a new record of Mach 2.44 at 74,700 feet, though he later lost control of the plane as a result of !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . The X-1A plummeted to 25,000 while Yeager struggled to regain control, during which his helmet broke the canopy. A year later, Maj. Arthur Murray took the X-1A to 90,440 feet. In 1955 the X-1A was lost after an explosion, later traced to a chemical reaction between the liquid oxygen and a treating agent in the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . Pilot Joe Walker was able to escape the plane, which was then jettisoned from the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

The !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! was a jet-powered airplane to explore transonic flight as part of a joint NACA/Navy program. Equipped with a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! engine, the Skystreak was still aerodynamically a product of WW2-era thinking, and featured unswept wings. Never the less, D-558-1-1 se t an airspeed record in early 1947 of 640.744mph, later bested by -2 aircraft 5 days later. The Skystreak reached Mach 0 .99 in level flight, but could only break Mach 1 in a dive, and was overshadowed by the Bell X-1. The Skystreak did provide invaluable re search on high subsonic speed and loading, and while -2 was destroyed in a crash, the first plane is on display at the National Naval Aviation Museum at NAS Pensacola, and -3 is at the Carolinas Aviation Museum at Charlotte-Douglas Int’l Airport.

The !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! was built as the prototype of a point-defense interceptor, but after the project was canceled the plane was turned over to NACA for testing. The aircraft was constructed from many existing components to save time, the main gear was taken from a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , the nosewheel from a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , the engine and hydraulics were taken from a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , the ejection seat and cockpit canopy were taken from the cancelled !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , and the rudder pedals were taken from a BT-13 trainer. The airplane was found to be underpowered and difficult to control, though Chuck Yeage r did manage to get it to Mach 1.05. On the last flight, the nose gear collapsed as Scott Crossfield taxied the plane off the lake bed. The plane did generate data on delta wings, which was later used on other Convair products such as the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and the canceled !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

DISCUSSION (16)

ttyymmnn > user314
07/29/2020 at 11:08

How many words this time? ;)

I think I’ve seen most of those at the USAF Museum in Dayton.

user314 > ttyymmnn
07/29/2020 at 11:11

Too many. I was finishing this one at 10:59am...

BaconSandwich is tasty. > user314
07/29/2020 at 11:19

Not terribly related, but I wish planes had rearward facing windows. That’d be one heck of a neat view, and I wonder if people would pay more for it. Sort of like rear-facing car seats in station wagons, but in the sky.

user314 > BaconSandwich is tasty.
07/29/2020 at 11:21

The airliner variant of the YB-49, had it ever been built, would have had a transparent tail cone:

That would have been something to see.

TheRealBicycleBuck > user314
07/29/2020 at 11:32

Random thoughts:

It’s amazing that they were able to make swing-wings work at all considering the change in aerodynamics as the wings moved.

A key component to our future is the development of quick-connect technology. We still require an inordinate amount of external support when connecting one vehicle t o another. Clearly we haven’t advanced far enough to make megazords a reality.

BaconSandwich is tasty. > user314
07/29/2020 at 11:41

I wish we had more flying wings. I know there were concerns about people being able to safely exit flying wing aircraft in an emergency, as well as how it would hook up to the sky way at airports, but still... task a few bored engineers with it, and I bet we’d have those issues figured out in no time.

You’d think that with the huge focus on fuel economy, someone would have done it by now.

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > user314
07/29/2020 at 11:47

The X-3 has got to be one of the most gorgeous failures ever.

Yum.

ttyymmnn > user314
07/29/2020 at 11:55

I do my “good morning” posts the night before. People bitch about Kinja, but the future posting option is fantastic. I’ve got about three weeks worth of TDIAH posts all ready to go.

user314 > ttyymmnn
07/29/2020 at 12:21

I usually have at least one done the night before, but we had a blackout yesterday afternoon; fortun ately after I’d saved, but it kept me from finishing.

ttyymmnn > BaconSandwich is tasty.
07/29/2020 at 14:35

For a while, it was standard practice in the RAF to build their transports with rear-facing seats. Studies have shown that it’s actually safer in a crash.

ttyymmnn > BaconSandwich is tasty.
07/29/2020 at 14:37

We may still see blended wings one day, but the big problem there is that the airport infrastructure would have to be radically changed.

Still, how cool would this have been? Let’s just hope they bolted over the bomb bay doors.

Kinja'd!!!

ttyymmnn > TheRealBicycleBuck
07/29/2020 at 14:41

The X-5 was really good at getting into unrecoverable spins. One test pilot died while flying one. I think the real bugger with variable geometry is the shift on COG. That’s why the Su-17/22 only had the outer portion of the wing variable.

BaconSandwich is tasty. > ttyymmnn
07/29/2020 at 14:58

I still think there has to be some way it could be done. But maybe I'm just a dreamer.

user314 > ttyymmnn
07/29/2020 at 15:55

“Anyone getting off in ATL? We need to make up some time, so you’re taking the express elevator down. The stewardess will be around with your parachute and a quick explanation of its use.”

user314 > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer
07/29/2020 at 15:56

Yup, i t looks fast even sitting still.

ttyymmnn > user314
07/29/2020 at 15:57

And if you’re not wearing a mask, no chute for you!